2023 (6) TMI 1471 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal Invalidates CIT(A) Orders for 2011-12 & 2013-14; Cites Section 250(6) Non-Compliance; Remands for Reevaluation.

M/s. C.I. Builders Pvt. Ltd. Versus ACIT-3 (1) /ITO-2 (1), Bhopal.

The Appellate Tribunal addressed appeals for assessment years 2011-12 and 2013-14, challenging the ex-parte orders by CIT(A) due to insufficient hearing ... Ex-parte order passed by CIT(A) without allowing sufficient time for the assessee to present their case - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) has passed appeal-order without giving adequate opportunity of hearing and without disposing of assessee’s request for adjournments. Secondly, we also note that section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 provides “The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) disposing of the appeal shall be in writing and shall state the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reason for the decision.”. But in the present case, the CIT(A) has dismissed assessee’s appeal, though on the ground of non-prosecution by assessee, but still without complying with the mandate of section 250(6). Thus, on both counts the impugned first appeal-order passed by CIT(A) is not valid; the same deserves to be set aside and the matter is fit for remand to the file of CIT(A) for a proper adjudication. Appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. The judgment issued by the Appellate Tribunal pertains to appeals for the assessment years 2011-12 and 2013-14, filed by the assessee against orders passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) in Delhi, which originated from assessment orders by ACIT-3(1), Bhopal, and ITO, 2(1), Bhopal. The appeals were heard together due to similarities in facts, representatives, and grounds raised by the assessee.The primary issue raised by the assessee was the alleged unfair treatment by the Ld. CIT(A) in passing an ex-parte order without allowing sufficient time for the assessee to present their case. The additional ground raised by the assessee highlighted the failure of the CIT(A) to consider adjournment requests and to follow the legal requirements outlined in Section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.The Ld. AR relied on precedents such as National Thermal Power Company Ltd. Vs. CIT and National Newsprints Vs. CIT to support the admission of the additional ground, arguing that it was a legal issue that could be decided based on existing facts. The Ld. DR did not object to this admission, leading to both parties making submissions on the matter.During the hearing, the Ld. AR emphasized the lack of adequate hearing opportunities provided by the CIT(A) and the dismissal of the appeals for non-prosecution without proper consideration of the legal requirements. The Ld. AR requested the quashing of the CIT(A) order and a remand of the matter for fresh adjudication in accordance with the law.The Ld. DR did not oppose the remand but urged the assessee to actively participate in the proceedings without seeking unnecessary adjournments. The Tribunal, after careful consideration, found merit in the submissions of the Ld. AR. It noted the deficiencies in the CIT(A) order regarding the lack of proper hearing opportunities and non-compliance with Section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.Consequently, the Tribunal deemed the CIT(A) order invalid and ordered a remand of the matter for proper adjudication, emphasizing the need for the assessee's active participation in the proceedings. The appeal of the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes, and the decision was pronounced in open court on 01/06/2023.In summary, the Tribunal's judgment focused on the procedural irregularities in the CIT(A) order and the necessity for a fair and lawful adjudication process, leading to the remand of the matter for further proceedings in compliance with legal requirements.